Academic Legal Writing - Eugene Volokh [64]
Likewise, replace “Guns have a far greater utilitarian value than ...” with “Guns are far more useful than ....” Instead of “could negatively affect the accessibility of handguns,” write “could make handguns less accessible.” Replace “made through this form of behavior” with “made this way.”
B. Nominalization
The three examples in the preceding paragraphs illustrate one common cause of legalese: “nominalization”—turning verbs, adjectives, and adverbs into nouns or noun phrases. The verb-heavy phrase “we should oppose” becomes the noun-focused “opposition to the bill is needed.” The adverb phrase “are far more useful than” becomes the noun-focused “have a far greater utilitarian value than.” The adjective phrase “could make handguns less accessible” becomes the noun-focused “could negatively affect the accessibility of handguns.”
Nominalization tends to add words, which makes text longer, and to add prepositional or verb phrases, which makes text more complex. It also tends to make the writing less concrete and thus less lively, because the new nouns (“opposition,” “value,” and “accessibility”) generally tend to be more abstract than the concrete actions (“should oppose”) and attributes (“more useful” or “less accessible”) that they replace. If you see an abstract noun, ask whether you can replace it with the concrete verb, adjective, or adverb that the noun phrase embodies.
C. Long Synonyms for Short Phrases (or for Single Words)
Legal writers also tend to use long phrases instead of their short synonyms. Instead of “many,” lawyers often write “a large number of.” “Near” becomes “in close proximity to.” “The legislature” turns into “the legislative branch of government.”
Sometimes the long phrases might seem to add some important nuance: For instance, a person may write “the legislative branch of government” to highlight the distinction between the legislature and other branches of government. But even then, simpler versions—such as “the executive,” “the legislature,” and “the judiciary”—can often express the nuance equally well. If you see a formal-sounding phrase that seems to represent just one basic concept, ask whether one word could do the job instead.
D. Appendix I
If you really learn to write in normal English, you'll be set. But in the meantime, Appendix I (p. 345) gives some tips on particular words and phrases you might want to avoid.
E. Misplaced Attempts at Dignity
Some argue that formal words and legal clichés add dignity to prose. And some prose does sound better when it's more formal—“Four score and seven years ago” sounds better in the Gettysburg Address than “Eighty-seven years ago” or “In 1776.”
But the Gettysburg Address was an oration in honor of fallen soldiers; Lincoln had a captive audience that was disposed to agree with him; and the entire address was only three minutes long.16 Most law review articles won't satisfy any of these criteria. For practical reasons, they should be clear and easy to read; and while you'd like them to seem intellectually hefty and sometimes even emotionally stirring, formal language isn't likely to give you that.
So as you read your draft, ask yourself for each sentence: Do ordinary people talk this way? Would I ever hear this from an articulate nonlawyer friend over dinner? “Opposition to the bill is needed on the grounds that the means will produce little or no desirable ends” flunks this test.
F. Unnecessary Abstractions
You should make your argument using words that concretely describe the real problems that people face, rather than talking about the problems in abstract terms (even if the abstract terms aren't especially legalese). Consider the following phrases:
... when law enforcement is unavailable.
Considering the amount